Women, and blogs and relevance

[LickTheStar]

I would agree that the world doesn't need another review of Women, especially one as half-assed as the one presented.

 

[Bukfan]

Yes, there's already enough reviews of Women out there. It's not like we need yet another one whether it's positive or negative.

I just typed in 'Bukowski Women reviews" in Google and got more reviews than anyone can handle.

http://www.google.dk/search?q=bukow...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

 

[Stavrogin]

Tony comes across like he wanted to make a late pc-statement (is anyone still using the term? me, okay) and picked up Bukowski to dismiss the sexist, macho filth he would have found elsewhere better, for his cause.

You may be on to something here. Perhaps Tony got caught with his Winnie in too many honey pots and now he's in Sex Rehab. Next up will be reviews of the Kama Sutra, The Decameron, Deep Throat, R Crumb's Zap Comix and Tiger Woods PGA Tour 10 by Electronic Arts. It's all a part of the deprogramming process. I wish him well.

 

[Ambreen]

The point is Bukowski and Twain are long dead, and "reviewing" their books takes a review away from a new book, by, oh, say, a living, breathing writer who needs the exposure.

There's that.

Does the world need a new "review" of Women? That's a rhetorical question. The answer is; no, the world does not. Just because someone "discovered" Bukowski yesterday, or has always had a Bukowski chip on their shoulder and needs a "review" to air it is not a valid reason to review a book.

I don't think the world absolutely needs a new review of Women but a blogger is free to write on any book he wants, whether current or old. I also don't think that "living, breathing writers" lack exposure. And I'm not sure these latter deserve any exposure at all, at least a huge part of them. Sincerely, I prefer to read an umpteenth review of Women, even a negative one, than the review of a worthless brand new book.

It doesn't matter anyway. Look at the comments under that "review." A bunch of imbeciles who never read Bukowski have now had their prejudices confirmed. So what does that accomplish? That's also a rhetorical question.

I don't believe that all the readers of this review reacted like the few people who wrote comments. ;)

 

[jordan]

of course a blogger is free to write whatever he wants, and we are all free to talk about why he is stupid for doing so. just because he's free to blog about whatever isn't itself an insulation from criticism

there's a difference between a critical review of an old book and what this guy did. the believer magazine did old book reviews (of books like ulysses) for a while, but the point was to do some academic literary criticism recast in a popular writing context, and the articles turned out pretty good. also, there's the idea of evaluating a 30-year old book in terms of contemporary literature or social norms - also a fruitful endeavor. in fact, there are plenty of ways to review old books that make the reviews relevant and enjoyable to read.

fortunately, "tony" misses all of them and writes a "stay away" review - probably the most worthless kind of review you can write for any book that hasn't just been released. leaving aside the fact that the review recycles all the most basic and unfounded criticisms of bukowski that have been leveled since the book was published, it's his way of telling people to avoid a book that has been around forever, with thousands and thousands of copies in print that makes him seem so ridiculous.

at least he was able to convince anna that she was right in having an unjustified opinion.

edit: i meant to add how funny it is that his recommendation of sister carrie motivated one of his commenters to read it. seriously, you don't deserve to know how to read if you think sentences like, "gee thanks tony for tellin' me to read sister carrie instead of women - i'm SO GLAD you're around to recommend canonized literature!"

 

[Black Swan]

Question.

On page 17 of "Women", Bukowski refers to Lydia or April , being on ATD.
I assumed that it was some kind of a drug, but do not know what it is.
A question that a friend asked me. Anyone knows?

 

[hoochmonkey9]

antidepressants, I believe.

 

[Black Swan]

has to be :)

 

[mjp]

ATD may have also been a form of public assistance (welfare) in those days. That's how I always read that. Maybe a native Californian would have more info. I wasn't around here in the 70s.

 

[Black Swan]

also possible. We never heard of antidepressants much in the 70's, did we?

 

[hoochmonkey9]

antidepressants started in the '50s.

but the welfare thing sounds right.

EDIT: just did a quick google search, and ATD was a fund for the 'totally disabled' in California during the '60s and '70s. I don't think that's it.

 

[1fsh2fsh]

I always read it as government assistance too. We had a program in michigan at the time called ADC.

 

[mjp]

ATD was a fund for the 'totally disabled' in California during the '60s and '70s. I don't think that's it.

You'd be surprised how many people in California are "totally disabled." And it was probably easier to qualify 30+ years ago than it is now.

 

[hoochmonkey9]

I searched buk.net, and it's not the first time someone has wondered what ATD is.

I reread the relevant passages in Women, and the welfare angle makes more sense, but ATD was a popular term for antidepressants.

 

[hoochmonkey9]

apparently, this is the most important question asked of me lately, because I have an....

UPDATE!!!!:

from this article:

Indeed, at the end of the 1960s, California and New York, moving rapidly toward an emphasis on community care, began to use the federal-state welfare program Aid to the Disabled (ATD, 1950-1974) to support indigent alcoholics and addicts in local settings much as it provided a non-institutional subsistence to poor persons with severe mental illness.

so, I'm now almost positive it relates to welfare.

thank you very much.

heh.

 

[mjp]

Excellent work, Holmes.

 

[David]

Yes, you've got it there. I had wondered about this term and I didn't think it was related to the "disabled" in the contexts Bukowski uses it.

 

[Bukfan]

Good work, Hooch! The Danish translation of Women translate ADT into 'disability pension' which supports your findings.
I too used to think it meant anti-depressants. Another little mystery solved.

 

[Black Swan]

Thanks Hooch, you cleared that one.

 

[Ambreen]

I have found the line in the french version: "April était grosse et sous ATD". I guess that when I read the book, I too believed it was a drug or a medicine. It's quite strange that the translator didn't touch to this acronym, which no French reader can understand.

 

[roni]

Carl Weissner translates as "Invalidenrente", which is as close to 'disability pension' as the Danish translation.